What do you mean you “heard” the turntable

At what point do turntable noise and speed issues become inaudible to human hearing? Some of the latest Technics specs are staggering.

What more is left for the turntable to do? 

"For wow and flutter most turntables were (and still are) around .1 to .3%. The SP-10 and SL-1200 were less than .025%."

"Remember the wow and flutter rating of less than .025%? Well now it’s less than .015%, which is considered the measurement limit. Read that again. Rumble is now down to -92 dB"

https://www.osirisstudio.com/home/2018/1/12/technics-sp-10

I suspect some of the ’sound’ of the turntable goes beyond the usual measurable ’specs’ of rumble, wow & flutter and has to do with mass, materials, isolation, the sonic character of the interface between the LP and the platter (which could be a combination of materials, hardness or softness of that material), etc.
If you think about the process- transducer, like a microphone, amplified by phono preamp, again, by line stage, and again, by amplifiers, you are hearing the combination of all of it-- the character of the cartridge, the arm and the table-- magnified to a considerable degree.
Even if you eliminate some variables- same cartridge (assuming no unit to unit differences), same arm and same set up, mass and materials have a sonic character.
I have often wondered to what extent different vinyl formulations and LP ’weights’ contribute to the process-usually its just a matter of how ’quiet’ the surfaces are, but are there differences in, say, the ’resonance’ characteristics of ’heavy’ vinyl v. Dynaflex era records? (Leaving aside VTA/SRA to account for 'thickness' of the record?)
Think about the various experiments people make with different platter mats, weights, clamps and the like. I think it all matters.
Not that I have any scientific methodology to suss all this out- but if you are working with a good turntable, there are many ’tweaks’ that may enhance the sound of one set up and not sound as good on another.

There is one aspect of any turntable based system’s sonic presentation that is primarily determined by and attributable to the turntable itself; and hence the reason that, yes, one can “hear” a turntable compared to another in the context of an unfamiliar system. michaelivosevic touches upon this in his post and cd318 asks a key question which goes to the heart of the matter:

**** At what point do turntable speed issues become inaudible to human hearing? ****

As usual in these discussions the focus is issues of tonality in the music heard with little in-depth consideration of the effects of distortions in the area of rhythm and pace which are primarily the result of the turntable’s rotational accuracy and consistency. So, “at what point do turntable speed issues become inaudible to human hearing?”. I don’t know, but while not directly applicable to turntables the question begs another far more familiar question: “at what point do harmonic distortion and other tonality-related issues become inaudible to human hearing?”. Of course, the better question is: “how can two electronic components sound so different when the two measure the same or close to the same?” Better still is to point to the almost universally accepted notion that measurements seldom tell the whole story; a notion definitely applicable to turntables. What our strobe discs tell us is only one piece of the story.

Think about all the minutia related to tonality that we hear from various components and obsess about when evaluating components. Rhythm is the most important component of music and in many ways the most fragile and hardest to record and reproduce accurately. So, why should turntables be any less subject to issues that affect its primary purpose of reproducing the rhythm of the music encoded in the lp grooves in a manner that is natural (accurate)? Every turntable that I have owned over the years has had a unique rhythm “signature”. Moreover, all the fiddling with belts of various kinds and their tensioning and positioning that I have done and the ensuing changes in the sound has shown me that correct rhythmic reproduction also influences our perception of tonal (and soundstage) issues; just as tonal issues which are determined by harmonic (and other) distortions influence our perception of rhythm. Often the reason that an electronic component might be perceived as being “faster” than another is mostly because it has a different, usually brighter or leaner, tonal signature.

Bottom line for me is that it is entirely possible to “hear” which of two turntables in an unfamiliar system does a better job with the rhythm in the music. Although more difficult and trickier it is possible, to a degree, to learn to recognize and extrapolate from how superior or inferior rhythmic accuracy might be affecting our perception of the tonal character that we hear.

@frogman , yes audio can be a phenomenally complicated business but we must draw the line somewhere. At some point we just have to accept that something is good enough, or at least as good as we can ever hear. 

Here's Michael Graves, professional mastering archivist, again.

https://youtu.be/PC7Qtf3Lbuk

 "9/10 times it sounds like the master tape." The problem with us audiophiles is that the sound of the master tape may not always be to our liking!

Anyone else remember the Linn v Pink Triangle debate?

**** At some point we just have to accept that something is good enough....****

I completely agree, but that’s not really the issue here as I see it.

**** ....or at least as good as we ever hear ****

Thats a wide open question and the ability and sensitivity of human hearing is far from fully understood or appreciated. 

Bottom line for me is that it is entirely possible to “hear” which of two turntables in an unfamiliar system does a better job with the rhythm in the music. Although more difficult and trickier it is possible, to a degree, to learn to recognize and extrapolate from how superior or inferior rhythmic accuracy might be affecting our perception of the tonal character that we hear.

I think Frogman is right.....
The ability of a turntable to maintain 'constant' and 'accurate' speed is able to be heard.....even if you're not a trained musician like Frogman 🤗
I have two turntables in my System (both with three tonearms).....one is a current model German-made belt-drive whilst the other is a 35 year-old vintage Japanese High-End Direct-Drive.
The belt-drive deck is nice, relaxed and tuneful......but does not possess the 'speed', 'grip' and knife-edge 'realism' of the direct-drive.

It's entirely possible though....that if you throw enough money, weight and technology into the construction of an uber-belt-drive deck.....it may approach the 'constancy' and 'accuracy' of the very best direct-drives.

As far as the question.... what are the 'limits' of our hearing ability to detect such minute speed variations?
I, like Frogman....don't know 🤪

last_lemming: "I think maybe you didn’t read the original post. Nobody questions that one can hear differences. We are questioning how one can say they hear a new component in a new system and in a new room and contribute the qualities they are hearing specifically to that component and only that component and then recommended that component based on that unique situation. There’s no way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The only true way to compare a component to another component is to have it done in the same room at the same time all other variables being equal. "

Okay, but with due respect that is not new.

Most competent reviews take an approach that changes one thing and otherwise retains the same context. Swap out the 'table but keep the 'arm and cartridge and everything else constant. There are certain protocols involved in making a reasonable comparison. Casual observers may not follow those, but that too is not new.  It's pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff with a few simple questions.

The fundamental job of a turntable is to rotate the record at 33-1/3 rpm and to do that with minimal noise.  It turns out those functions are not that easy to achieve.

It's pretty amazing how adept is our hearing mechanism at recognizing speed differences when presented with such and just how much difference stable accuracy makes to music. 

Pitch deviation is an old-world gauge of stable accuracy - our ears are far more sensitive. Our ear/brain ability to differentiate tiny temporal differences has developed over eons; it is a survival skill.  Music occurs in time and it is the turntable that literally creates the time in which music is reproduced in our rooms. 

It is pretty straightforward to hear differences between two 'tables, each with nominally high stable accuracy where one of those 'tables is measurably more accurate than the other.  Wrt @halcro 's comment, I don't think we've yet reached the boundaries of detection.

I don't think we've yet reached the boundaries of detection.

👍

jtimothya, we are in violent agreement, as they say.  Nice post.

I recently exchanged a IFi phono for an Allnic 1201 and the difference is easy to discern.  I recently tried a MoFi UltraDeck with the ultra tracker cartridge in my system, I liked my really old sansui 2050c with Hana SL cartridge much than the Mofi setup.  Though captive cables do give you that little extra radio transmission that creeps into the output (ugh)....
oh, adding a van Evers power conditioner made the whole thing much quieter, heard that right away !